Talk:United States of America
Identity of the Two New States Just out of curiousity was it ever mentioned who the two new states were?-Rebelstrike2005 15:02, 9 Feb 2005 (CET) :It has often been speculated that Cuba was the 52nd state admitted to the United States. However, it seems more likely that a combination of Puerto Rico and Guam would be this, since both are currently United States territories, and all have considered statehood in the past. Also, the vast majority of Washington DC favors statehood for their district, but such would require a Constitutional amendment. Guam and Puerto Rice, however, are both eligible to apply for statehood, but neither has done so at present. :In part one of DS9: "Past Tense", the Asian-American at the IT man's party discusses seabed mining in the Caribbean. He says it took him some effort to get approval from the Pan-Caribbean government. Given Cuba's stronger political ties with its Caribbean neighbours than the United States government, it would require a much bigger shift to get into the United States, rather than the Pan-Caribbean nation. Ottens 16:39, 9 Feb 2005 (CET) ::Afghanistan and Iraq. By Emperor Bush the Fourth in 2033. The ECON finally saved the captured peoples of North America and dissolved the Union, putting up the Iron Curtain between the United Pacific States and the United Atlantic States, finally ending the long post-atomic horror in 2079. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:49, 9 Feb 2005 (CET) :::Note: comment removed by Antodav, re-inserted by Kobi :::(idiotic political comment deleted). Afghanistan and Iraq could probably do worse though. Like join the European Union, for example. And it wouldn't surprise me if the ECONs did think of themselves as armies of liberation; so did the Nazis and the Soviet and Chinese Red Armies, and if it weren't for the Prime Directive so probably would Starfleet :-P.--Antodav 11:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC) ::::Could we possibly avoid such blatant political statements on MA. Especially one that's so inflammatory. I'd thank the author to remove out of respect to MA. --TOSrules 02:08, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT) :And where's that from? ;-) Ottens 17:52, 9 Feb 2005 (CET) :::My personal guesses are Puerto Rico and South California (meaning the state of California was divided in two, something that has been proposed in the past). But I have absolutely nothing to base that on.--Antodav 12:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC) :::::"However, evidence from Star Trek: First Contact as well as Star Trek: Enterprise suggest this may not be the case, as parts of the planet, particularly Zefram Cochrane's area (Montana) were improving due to contact with the Vulcans." Seems an unnecessary note, as Montana does not need to be part of the US in the future and could infact exist without the existance of the United States. Tyrant 15:07, 9 Feb 2005 (CET)Tyrant ::::::Well, lets think about this logically. ::::::# - 52 states still existed as a part of the USA. (see the main note, but 52 stars means between 2033 (or whenever) and 2079. I doubt there was any sort of swap, so that means there was no subtraction or addition of states). ::::::# - The only thing we know about 2079 is that it was the year of Q's post-atomic horror court in the east. We have no real indication of whats going on in the west from that episode. However, considering Vulcan contact and the fact that Cochrane undoubtedly continued working to improve hummanity (as evidenced by recorded history of his quotes just 10 years later "Don't try to be a great man, just be a man... and let history make its own judgements"), I don't see how anything changed for the destruction of the USA in 2079. ::::::# - In reality, the reason they used the 2079 date in that episode was the fact that, originaly, 2079 was when they thought World War 3 took place (since Q said 2079 was the year of his post-atomic horror court). They may have meant to say 2053 since that's when the war was, but of course hadn't figured that out in that point of Trek history writing... :::::: In any case, I don't see any problem with the content I added, considering it was not part of the main body but instead included as italicized conjecture. Famartin 21:17, 9 Feb 2005 (CET) :::::::I don't recall which exact episode it was in ENT, but Hoshi wondered out loud why the Vulcans made first contact with the United States. T'Pol responded that it was logical, because the USA was the most powerful nation on Earth. --DNJimerson 19:23, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::::::: It was , and I'm not sure that was the explaination exactly, but it was the episode which they had a similar conversation. made a similar reference, in more of a British vs. American pov, between Trip and Malcolm. --Alan del Beccio 19:27, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::::::That much is true, though Malcolm only went so far as to say something about "you North Americans." I don't recall the exact words T'Pol used in describing the US, but it was along those lines. She may have been speculating as to the Vulcans' intentions in an event which happened before she was born, but the idea that the US was the most powerful nation appeared to be non-controversial. (EDIT) And I'm not sure "Desert Crossing" is the episode I have in mind. Seems to me it was much later than that. --DNJimerson 19:42, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::I thought the episode was , but come to think of it it could have indeed been "Desert Crossing" instead. And that was in 2063, more than a decade before the likely deathdate of the USA (2079). I don't recall T'Pol saying that US was the most powerful nation on Earth still by that time though, and in fact, given current political trends, that doesn't seem very likely. --Antodav 11:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC) :::::::She said it, whichever episode it was. Doesn't make much sense that there would still be a United Kingdom with a Royal Navy in the 2150s if there aren't still other nations, and that if there were, that the US wouldn't be among them. Considering all the evidence to the contrary listed on the main page, I don't see 2079 as a "likely deathdate" at all.--DNJimerson 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC) :::::::::It's possible that the British give up control of Bermuda at sometime in the near future and is later absorbed into US along with Puerto Rico. The absorption of more Caribbean island as states might be the reason that the flag changes again in 2079. I remember reading some Star Trek novel that said that by 2271 the US had grown to 56 states. - Tprynn 15:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::Well, it seems pretty clear the 51st and 52nd states were no, never mentioned. And as for this "US is the most powerful" thing, I thought T'Pol's answer was something more along the line of "that's where the warp ship came from." Regardless, current political trends and or dislikes don't seem to be particularly relevant to MA. Lets try to keep it Trek? -AJ Halliwell 14:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Hello! I was with friends when I first saw that episode, first run by the way, and I said aloud, "New Columbia and Puerto Rico!" Why did I say that? Because some time before it aired there had been reports in the news about how the issue of statehood for both places was going to be reconsidered again that same year. I assumed that the writers at the time were also just as savvy if not more so about it, and had decided to err in favor caution, that both places med it through the statehood process. However, sometime after the episode first aired, the measures had failed once again. Leo Star Dragon 1. 15:35, March 4, 2011 (UTC) OOPS! By the way, I live in the Central Time Zone. I meant to include, that I also favor the addition of at least another state to explain the part about 2079 being the end year for that flag design. Leo Star Dragon 1. 15:37, March 4, 2011 (UTC) I agree with ottens that its most likely that its Guam and puerto rico as the new states but its also possible that puerto rico could include us Virgin islands because thos 2 US colonies share a border. ottens 2 canidates are the most likely i tootally agree but we will never know till another future star trek comes out that tells us that for sure or even a updated star trek encyclipeda. i read one from my local libray branch not the main branch in downtown and it was not complely up to date it did not have the enterprise show in it only up to voyager. so if the new books come out discribing everything to do with star trek come out and they finaly reval the nature of the US in our near future then we may debate this for a time. and as for the pan carribean government mentioned in part one of DS9: "Past Tense" which occured in the 2020s AD this may not be completly far fetched this government may have evolved out of the carribean community (CARICOM) which is a customs union between its members but like the US's 2 future states the member states of the caribean government are even more of a mystery. but the caribean goverment is a future supra-national state in the works eventual books will have to be written that show the near term events of star trek from now till the third world war giving us a clear picture of how the events leading up to the third world war takes place. we will be in suspence till it happins but us younger people who grew up with star trek in the 1970s and 1980s will get to see how new supranational governments come to be. there not science fiction any more we did live to see a actual european union so who knows what the future has in store for the star trek united states of america. 10:52, January 5, 2012 (UTC) US Presidents I want to write an article about US Presidents. But I only want to stick to those brought up in Star Trek. it would Include Abraham Lincoln from but it would also include the "The Cage" list in which several presidents are shown by pict and years of service. Then we have Roosevelt which is referred to as FDR in a 1936 article from and in a 1941 holodeck article from . My problem is how to structure this article. --TOSrules 06:38, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT) : Harry S. Truman was mentioned in . The "president" was referred to in in terms of the White House. I would say structure the article in terms of creating a simple "real world" paragraph outlining the role - then just simply stick to "Trek world" references without making it too complicated, thats what wikipedia was made for! ;) --Gvsualan 06:51, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT) ::J Edgar Hoover was mentioned in . Swedish Doctor 02:21, June 18, 2011 (UTC) :::1) J. Edgar Hoover was not a President(Herbert Hoover was) and 2) this discussion is over six years old.--31dot 03:13, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Existence of the States in 2154. In , Reed meets the Section 31 operative at this address: *1044 North Maple *San Francisco *California *USA, Earth It is only briefly seen on a computer display, but is clearly visible. So, can we assume the USA still exist (or exist again) in 2154?--BlueMars 11:29, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT) :It only shows that the region exist as a name, not as a sovereign country. --TOSrules 14:53, 30 Mar 2005 (EST) 50 states ::That's a bit of a reach. "North America" would make much more sense in that context. The only reason to list "USA" would be if it still exists as a political unit. --DNJimerson 19:38, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Also, in two LCARS screens in Astrometrics refer to the Grand Canyon and Bloomington as being in Arizona and Indiana, USA, Earth. So it seems, at least as a name, it continues to exist well into the 24th century. - AJHalliwell 18:27, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::That's really quite a stretch and I find it extremely difficult to believe that the United States of America could still exist as any sort of cohesive political entity in the 24th Century. It's already been clearly established on screen that Earth has had a united global government for over two hundred years by that time. Furthermore, that government is clearly subordinate to that of the Federation, which seems to be the only completely sovereign political entity still in existence. ::::For the United States to have joined the global government which later became part of the Federation, it would have had to, by definition, give up its sovereignty, its Constitution, its system of government and its economic system--basically, everything that makes it the United States in the first place. Without its government, the U.S. is nothing--at the most it would just be just 50+ sovereign, self-governing states acting completely independently of one another. The U.S. Congress, stripped of all of its legislative power, would be an impotent and essentially meaningless body, and the U.S. presidency would mean about as much as the British monarchy does today. Even the Articles of Confederation created a government more centralized than that. To say that the United States could still exist as a viable political entity under those conditions is to deny the very reason why the Constitution was written in the first place. If the US exists in the 24th Century it exists in name only and I doubt it would bare any recognizable political resemblance to the United States as we currently know it. ::::Furthermore, I've always taken Riker's statement in --that the flag on the sleeve of the astronaut's uniform having 52 stars meant that his ship had to have been launched between 2032 and 2079--to mean that the United States ceased to exist in 2079 (possibly as the result of defeat and conquest by the Eastern Coalition during the Third World War, or of the outright political collapse of its government during the Postatomic Horror and its replacement by one under the direct control of the New United Nations or the United Earth government). ::::I'm not of the opinion that things that appear briefly on viewscreens or on props without ever actually being spoken out loud by the characters should be taken seriously as canon. For that matter I suppose we should also conjecture that the Soviet Union exists again by the 24th Century, since the dedication plate of the U.S.S. Tsiolokovsky from "The Naked Now" claims that the ship was built in the U.S.S.R. --Antodav 11:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC) :::::If this is your understanding, you've obviously never taken a political science course. The U.S. is a federation itself, which means, like the United Earth in the United Federation it retains some political sovereignty over some matters within its jurisdiction. Contrary to your view, sovereignty is not a absolute whole, but can be divided through federalism. There is nothing to suggest that the U.S. is not soverign over some matters while having having pooled -rather than surrendered - soveriegn authority over other issues with other governments or having delegated through amendment to its own Constitution or ratification of a global/interstellar treaty limited soveriengty to a higher level of government. Tfleming 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ::::I removed the explicit statement of the United States continuing to exist in the 24th Century from the article and replaced it with an indented, italized statement that includes the more solidly-canon based conjectural date of 2379 for the U.S.'s demise. Sorry, but one image from a viewscreen is not enough to convince me of that. I don't have a high-def TV, unfortunately :-D. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is still under debate.--Antodav 11:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC) :::::What is the canon source for the U.S. ceasing to exist in 2379? Tfleming 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::All we know about 2079 is that there are more or less (maybe no more) stars on the flag. About production ressources, to my mind there are the way for production staff to include elements that they can't state otherwise and should in that view taken as seriously. - Philoust123 13:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Hello! I was born in Seoul, South Korea, but I am a citizen of the USA, thanks to being naturalized as a baby. My brother was born a citizen because he was born in Honolulu two years after me. But either way, we are both "Citizens of the USA"! (But he's the only one allowed by law to be a candidate for President.) Eventually we both live in Texas and are Texans too for awhile, until we eventually move north enough to be Oklahomans. But now he's a Texan again. But what we both still have in common along with our father, is that all 3 of us are also "Citizens of the Chickasaw Nation" and we have the cards to prove it. The Chickasaw Nation has its own border lines within the Great State of Oklahoma, as do other members of the Five Civilized Tribes. Drive up and down I-35 and and you can tell when you enter and exit them, by the same type of signs that you see for counties. We Chickasaws have our own form of sovereign government and the paperwork that goes with it. (We also have our own police force.) We can choose to have tribal license plates on our vehicles rather than state plates if we so choose. Our tribe's leader is a "governor" though, just in case you were thinking "chief". Our tribe's land is not the exact same as Vatican City, Vatican City is. (A city-state surrounded by Rome, Italy that requires a passport stamp, etc.) So visitors don't have to get a passport or a visa just to visit or pass through. My point here is this: If we Chickasaws can exist the way we do within the borders of the Great State of Oklahoma and also of the United States of America as a whole, and be legal residents and/or citizens of all three, then surely within the context of the "Star Trek Universe", The USA can still exist even with the existence of a "United Earth" and a "United Federation of Planets"! For me, it means I'd have two more forms of citizenship cards or papers to add to my collection. As for another point about citizenship, Dad and I argue about whether or not we are "Americans" or "US Citizens". I prefer "American", he prefers "US Citizen". I've pointed out that other nations have the word state in their formal names, i.e. "United Mexican States", but I've never read about them or heard about them debating what to refer to themselves as. Are there people in Canada who refer to themselves as, "Royal Provincials"? I dare say that the terms, "Canadian", "American", and "Mexican" are the correct terms. Oh, I do prefer "Native American" over "Indian", as I've never condoned letting an error stand. Once Columbus and the rest that followed learned of their error, they should have corrected it right then and there rather then continue to indulge in it and to perpetuate their error. As for the various contradictions that the maps and such provide, I blame it on time travel and that not everything gets corrected! Not to mention any pranksters among the Q! Leo Star Dragon 1. 16:08, March 4, 2011 (UTC) States Listed Out of curiosity, was anyone trying for a comprehensive listing of the United States, or were they trying for only those states mentioned in Trek? Because I've seen several states listed that have no other links (presumably meaning they haven't been referenced), but there's only 41 listed. (Yeah, okay, part of it is a little disappointment that my own state, Missouri, isn't listed, but I think we should either stick to ones that are referenced, or do all of them that we can. Just my not-so-humble opinion, though.) -- umrguy42 17:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :A state deserves its own article ony once it has been mentioned in a piece of dialogue or background infromation. However, if you wish to complete the list, each state probably has at least one miscellaneous type reference: Washington State was named after George Washington (etc.) -- so we can list that here without creating an article for the state. (I'm not sure if Washington or Missouri have been mentioned, but once we find a reference, they have the go ahead to be articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming can be seen on the US map from and (the names of those states are legible on the map, as are the borders and also some cities located in the various states), so if someone wanted to create articles for the remaining states, this should be source enough. --Jörg 14:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC) US flag with 56 stars? In "Storm Front" and "Storm Front, Part II" a map of the United States is seen which curiously depicts the US flag with 56 stars. I gather that between 1912 and 1959 the flag had 48 stars, arranged in 6 lines of 8 stars each. Could it be that the guys behind-the-scenes added one row of stars too much? Or can we assume that 8 new states joined the US because of the Nazi/Na'kuhl threat? --Jörg 13:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :We can assume that "Storm Front" was a completely frelled episode and probably be right. ----Antodav 11:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC) ::As communism doesn't exist and as nazi is a great threat, many things could have changed in this timeline, so why not. - Philoust123 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) :::"Frelled"? Aholland 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC) different universe ;-) --Jörg 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC) WTC Image I'm not so sure the WTC attack should be listed among US historical events simply because it was there at the end of Storm Front. Simply put, actual history diverged significantly from Star Trek history a few decades ago, and it seems unlikely that the series of events leading up to the 9/11 attacks would have happened in a world where the Eugenics Wars took place. Too much would be different. My impression of the scene is that Daniels and Archer were looking at a number of alternate histories/timelines. Obviously, our own real-world timeline could have been one of those histories, but I don't think it necessarily represents the history of Star Trek's universe. --DNJimerson 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC) :That scene has been accepted to be the correct timeline events playing as they are corrected, therefore it is considered an event that happened in the Trek universe. What we cannot speculate it what or who was responsible for the attacks (like al-Queda) since that is not said. For all we know, it was some remaining augments from the Eugenics wars. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah, the attack (and the other scenes shown in the time stream), were specifically referred to as being the timeline resetting itself, meaning what they were seeing was history unfolding before them. --From Andoria with Love 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC) I had considered that it might have been a depiction of something other than the 9/11 attacks (like, as you said, a scene from the Eugenics Wars), but the article refers to "terrorist" attacks occurring in 2001. I think that is unsupported and probably unlikely. --DNJimerson 20:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ::We generally accept what the writers intended it to be: in this case, the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See Talk:George W. Bush for a similar discussion. --From Andoria with Love 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC) OK, but what evidence do we have that it's what the writers meant? I don't think it's obvious from the finished episode. --DNJimerson 16:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::I think it is. As an American, there isn't much else you could infer from seeing those two towers burning. It was added in there for shock value, as they knew that the audience would instantly recognize the image and associate it with commonly known events. This point has already been argued and a consensus reached at talk:George W. Bush. I'm not sure what you think has changed that should make us re-hash this discussion -- its all been said and done. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Is it necessary for you be so condescending every time you post? Even when I've agreed with you -- which has been most of the time, actually -- I've usually thought you could have phrased things better. In any case, that conversation seems to premised on the idea the writers have generally preferred a history most similar to our own, notwithstanding Eugenics Wars, DY-100s, etc.. But that doesn't really hold up considering a couple of story arcs later on in that season revolved around the legacy of those very events. So, obviously, they did happen. (Personally, I think, when there's ambiguity, things should be viewed in the light of the overwhelming canon established before it, but maybe that's just the lawyer in me.) No one seems to have brought that up, so yeah, it's something new to the conversation.--DNJimerson 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you think was condescending about that. I think you need to cool down if you want to work on this. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) I'm chill as a pill. Let bygones be bygones. Fresh start? I made a point which I think bears discussion. :::Could you please restate the point that bears discussion? I must've missed it. As I said up there, I agree with other participants of this discussion who say that "we generally accept this as what the writers intended it to be" and the like -- what a reception for my first comment into this discussion. I'm almost sorry i said my piece. The Eugenics Wars and other silly Star Trek things don't figure ino this at all, because they weren't mentioned in this particular episode's time go round, i say they have no bearing on what we would write about.. Are we going to use the theory that Khan was behind 9/11? Let's add that speculation to the article right away! -- Captain M.K.B. 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC) "Star Trek silliness"? ALL of Star Trek is silliness. If that's a debate-ender, why, then, is anyone even here? A point or two about point of view: *''Memory Alpha's point of view (POV) is that of a character inside the fictional Star Trek universe. The only exceptions to this rule are articles about the Star Trek franchise and production (eg. articles on books, comics, actors, staff, etc.), which naturally are not part of the Star Trek universe.'' *''If there are subjects that have conflicting references in the stories, simply add all the given information, and optionally add a background note explaining that there is a conflict.'' I don't imagine the Eugenics Wars would be "silliness" to anyone in the Trek universe. You also can't argue that "Storm Front" somehow changed the timeline and there were no Eugenics Wars, because, as I said, there were a couple of story arcs, same series, same season, same writers and producers, which explicitly confirm it. So, interpreting everything within the Trek universe, as is the guideline, there's at the very least a conflict, and one which was not addressed in the other conversation. It seems to ME that when a writer writes "Indiana, USA" into an episode taking place in the 24th century, it's pretty clear he means it in the sense we all understand it, not as a traditional name for a geographical area, but as the nation known as the United States of America, and for all the same reasons given in the GWB thread -- yet that debate went on in this thread, and is noted as unresolved, and no one has marched in with declarations about "the intent of the writers." There are also notations in other one-off episodes where writers got things wrong, because they don't fit within many hours of established Trek lore. Why, then, is this minor point so sacrosanct that it's not subject to the same treatment? --DNJimerson 18:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC) about the eugenics wars that were qouted by spock from his qoutes they took place in the late 20th century and possibly the early 21st century and i remember he said that europe and africa had killings. in fact spocks calling them eugenics wars may be the 23rd century name for the period of history. becasue in real life something similar did happin we had ethnic cleansing in yugoslavia in the 1990s we had the rawanda massacre in 1994 and recently the darfur region of Sudan. all of these are genocide and are possibly part of the eugenics wars. originally in the 1960s the eugenics wars were planed to be the third world war but as we got closer to 2001 ad the start of the 21st century it had become aparent that there was no third world war and we had witnessed eugenic type slaughter. the writers in the 1960s may have come up with this ethnic eugenic slaughter based on current events and trends indicating that genocide in the future was not too far fetched. in fact by the 1970s and 1980s there was genocide in cambodia. as for the DY-100 type ships with suspended animation crew. thos never came about. and as for khan being behind 9/11 in 2001 thats impossible because khan was launched in 1996 and he would not have been able to lead that terrorist attack while he was in suspended animation. 12:33, January 5, 2012 (UTC) Midway Island Can one clearly see Midway Island on the Pacific Map from "The Cage"? If so, we should include it as a territory and write an article. I volunteer to do it! -FC 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC) im against midway island having a artical. all it is is emergency us airforce landing strip and the only inhabitants are US military personel its not even considered a official territory by the US government. theres only 5 official territorys not counting Distict of columbia . to be a offical territory it must have its own government must have its own population of permanent people. so far theres 5 they are US virgin is ,puerto rico ,guam , american samoa ,northen mariana islands. all other territorys are just small claimed islands that dont have population becasue there too small to ever elect a government. same situation that pitcairn island has to the united kingdom. 12:45, January 5, 2012 (UTC) Talk:America Explanation created to explain the use of "American" in our articles.. most US sources refer to themselves as American, even though this angers inhabitants of Canada, Mexico, Central America and South America, who could be considered "American" as well. This has become a dispute on Wikipedia, as the US press and government tend to mis-speak and exclude other American countries and inhabitants from the term, even distressingly referring to "un-American" issues of other inhabitants of the Americas (re:immigration). -- Captain M.K.B. 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :Not to get on a political rant or anything, but when on earth have any of those (or any other) countries ever referred to themselves as Americans? And what the heck do they propose we call ourselves here... United Statesians? United States of Americans? USA-ians? Citizens of Canada are Canadians, citizens of Mexico are Mexicans, etc... and citizens of the US are Americans. It's a stupid argument about nothing, in my book. :Ahem. OK, I'm all better now. -- Renegade54 10:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC) ::Let's be realistic. The official name of the US is "the United States of America." This site uses American English and in American English, America means the US. (When someone holds up a sign that says Death to America, does anyone think of the Americas instead of the US?) --StarFire209 21:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC) ::: Removed: "The singular "pastime" implies there was a single nation called "the Americas"." as this is not supported in canon. :::In any event, 'Americas' in that context refers to the continents, and baseball is popular in Central America as well as North America. America the singular does mean the US, but not 'Americas'.31dot 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC) :::: The "Americas" refers to the collective North and South American region, and could very well be its own reference. In addition to the "Evolution" reference, it is also mentioned in in nearly the same context. Otherwise, see my merge suggestion below.... --Alan 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Merge As already hinted at above, and strictly speaking from the Star Trek reference pov, this should probably be merged with United States of America. Of the 4 usages of the term "America," all ( , ) were in specific reference to the United States, alone. --Alan 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) *'Support', Alan is quite correct. --31dot 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC) *'Indeed' – Cleanse 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC) *'Merged'. --From Andoria with Love 07:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC) References Removed the following list: * ** ** ** ** ** * : ** ** * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** * ** ** ** These references really shouldn't be listed as a list, and either need to be integrated into the article with supporting context or just, all around, better referenced than a simple list that basically says "you want to know more? what this episode for the reference." --Alan 04:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Baseball: Imperialism or typo? Baseball "was the national past time of the Americas" according to the article. Now, if this is just a typo it's fine, but the way it's written sounds like a paradigm shift from the present state of affairs. In "the Americas" (North and South America) the national past time is soccer/football if anything. I'm curious which is the case. Splak 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC) : Depends on who (national origin, thus: pov) wrote it, but other than the ambiguous (in origin) reference to the London Kings, it was only mentioned as being a US sport. I take that back...guess it had expanded into the Planetary Baseball League at some point. --Alan 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) States listed Why are Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont on the list of states? We all know they are states, but since they are never mentioned in Trek canon, I would argue they shouldn't be on the list. We don't have the names of the other two (21st century) states on the list; so why have other states that aren't mentioned in canon? --Dr. Floyd 10:15, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :It is possible they are on the list because of being seen on a map of the US, though I don't know where that might have been seen. However, if we do not know where they appeared, they could be removed now and restored if the reference is found.--31dot 10:22, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::I think you could see them in one of these fine episodes: . - 10:42, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :I checked the image of that map here and didn't see it, although it could be just that particular image.--31dot 10:44, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm going to watch both of them again anyways, so I'll let you know. :) - 10:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::In "Storm Front" you can see all 48 states that should be there, though there isn't a close up of New England. Still no idea where all those extras stars on the flag came from. - 11:06, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :Pure speculation, but maybe some other region of the world joined the US as a result of the timeline changes. In reality I'm guessing it was just a mistake by whomever made the map.--31dot 11:10, June 13, 2010 (UTC) Suits makes a reference to "suits" from Washington sometimes visiting the Riverside Shipyard – as "suit" is often used as slang for government official, and Washington, D.C. has little industry other than the government it was specifically built to house, this would suggest that the United States was still a functioning entity in the mid-23rd century.}} See here. –Cleanse ( talk | ) 03:01, August 14, 2011 (UTC) actually thats not corrent the "suit" slang term can mean any person wearing a buisness suit. although the slang term "G-man" or government man specifically means a suited government employee. and as for the US goverment functioning entity in 23rd century we already established that the USA would still exsit as a government but only a local goverment of the region formerly the US and not having independent sovergernity that having been giving up in 2079 after it was probably merged into a north american union supra national government with its mexican and canadien neighbors . in real life in the year 2010 there was a agreement between the US and canada whish amounted to the historical eqivelent of personal union and both leaders of the two countries were answering questions to the reporters on how this would effect there individual sovergnity and harper of canada said if theres a attack on the US it should also be veiwed as a attack on canada. but so far the US has not had this kind of meeting with mexico and trying to get the north america union really going its only amounted to the eqivelnt of a personal union called a dual alliance which is the current day term. so the US government in 23rd century has no external sovergenty only internal local sovergernty. 13:17, January 5, 2012 (UTC) It could possibly be that the two states from Star Trek-episode the Royale could in fact be both Israel and Iraq, due to the annual military defense funding given to Israel from the US; being Americas greatest ally in the Middle-east a concept was made called "The Two Stars of Peace" plan also some American Publications suggested the Iraq could ether be the 51st or the 52nd state of the USA, since we have large oil facilities and huge US troop movements there. 5/19/2013 Or it could be South California and Puerto Virgo--(Puerto Rico & the US Virgin Islands) combined into one state, that could be the case after all; because just recently Puerto Rico has just voted to become the 51st state of the union--possibly including the US Virgin Islands with that also feather more the citizens of southern CA have just voted to become a single state known as South California.... most likely it'll probably be the 52nd state of America, so in a way we already have 52 states of the union! 5/29/2013....JDC